Indian polity has been witnessing inter-religious hostility since
before the country’s independence. This hostility has sometimes caused
immense damage, including bloodshed, arson, rape and other brutalities
to the Indian society. Time to time some saner elements had been coming
forward to ensure religious harmony but they were challenged by those
religious groups who were interested in maintaining their own
identities. Such groups, instead of listening to those saner elements,
organized militant movements to preserve their separate identity. Thus,
the country was being driven in two directions - one towards secularism
of politics and integration of communities and the other towards
sectarianism and separatism. As far as the nature of modern Indian
society is concerned, its multi-religious character is not confined to
only man and God relations but is intimately connected with the exercise
of powers. Multiplicity leads to inter-religious strife but combined
with the issue of political power, inter-religious confrontation in
India creates explosive social and political situations.
India is a pluralist country and hence all major religions of the
world- Christianity, Islam and Judaism found a place here even though
Hinduism remained the dominant belief system. All religions have a value
system and separate religious texts, which serve as a guide to what is
right and wrong.
While the basic tenet of Hinduism is peaceful co-existence, the
belief system of Islam and Christianity is intricately linked to
political power and hence history is witness to their indulgence in wars
and the use of sword for the spread of their religion in different
geographical areas. Thus, for Islam and Christianity, religion and
political power have either worked as a great combination or a workable
compromise.
In India, the two major religious communities - Hindus and Muslims
have little in common in terms of religious beliefs. In the twentieth
century, the problems in Hindu-Muslim relationship had to be resolved so
as to put up a united fight against the foreign ruler. While Gandhi and
Nehru, in their own ways were spearheading and attempting to bring
Hindus and Muslims together in the mainstream of the struggle for
independence, the Muslim elite was divided in its approach to the
problems of inter-religious relationships. While one section of the
Muslim elite jumped into the national movement under the leadership of
Gandhi and Nehru, the majority of the Muslim community in India came
under the influence of separatist leaders who thought that the interests
of Muslims could not be safeguarded in a united India which in reality
would be a Hindu-majority India. Hence, during the freedom struggle this
section of Muslim leadership pressurized the British to recognize the
separate identity of the Indian Muslims and safeguard it by partitioning
the country into two parts. The partition of India and emergence of
Pakistan added a new dimension to the problem of secularism in the
Indian sub-continent. In the pre-independence period, India saw three
models of secularism provided by Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah.
Gandhi believed in the essential unity of religions and emphasised
that the points which divided the major religions were peripheral while
unity was the basic and important point. In a multi-religious society,
with history of inter-religious competition and confrontation, perhaps
this confederal character of religion seemed a proper approach to
Gandhi. But this approach to religion-politics relationship was
inadequate because by emphasizing the essential unity of religions, new
consciousness among the mass of illiterate people, particularly whose
religious faith was dependent on political power, could not be created.
Also Gandhian approach could not make any abiding impact on the masses
whose beliefs were based on the principle that their own religion was
different and superior to others.
Secondly, the issue was not about religions and their beliefs but
about the place of religion in politics and society. Gandhi tried to
tackle the problem without relating them to the history of
religion-state power alliance in India. Hence in spite of honest and
sincere efforts, Gandhi could not improve inter-religious relationship
in India. For Gandhi, secularism would be ensured if all religions are
respected.
Nehru’s approach to the problem of religion and politics in India was
fundamentally different from that of Gandhi. Unlike Gandhi, Nehru
rejected religion in his personal life. Nehru was influenced by science
and his rational and materialist outlook impelled him to reject all
organized religions. Nehru wanted a society where religious beliefs had
no place, and if people believed in some religions it should be their
private affair. But the question at stake was not the question of
religion but power politics in which religion played an important role.
According to Nehru, the remedial measures for the situation were
economic development and industrialization of the country. Nehru
believed that the processes of change generated by economic development
and science and technology would generate a new consciousness of
citizenship and the existing religious loyalties may then be replaced by
secular and modern outlook.
In pre-independent India, while Gandhi and Nehru were spearheading
the nationalist movement in their own ways and were attempting to bring
Hindus and Muslims together in the mainstream of struggle of freedom,
the Muslim elite was divided in its approach to the problem of
inter-religious relationship. Though a section of Muslim elite jumped
into the national movement under the leadership of Gandhi and Nehru, the
Muslim community in general, in absence of any effective integrationist
leader, felt that the interest of Muslims would not be secure in a
united India, which would be Hindu dominant. The Muslims found a
separatist leader in Mohammad Ali Jinnah who articulated the idea of a
separate Muslim state under the banner of Muslim League. The ultimate
result was the partition of India into two parts.
After independence, the views of Nehru prevailed and the Constitution
of India separated religion from politics in the fundamental law of the
land. But the separation of religion from politics in the Constitution
itself could not ensure practice of secularism in the country because
the public functionaries in the pyramid of power continued to be
influenced by religious consideration in the performance of public
responsibilities. Most importantly, practice of secularism added a new
dimension when some of the political parties started to use the term
secularism to form vote banks. Since by now it has become an effective
tool to create and strengthen vote banks, the political parties are
leaving no stone unturned to appease the minorities in the name of
secularism, even at the cost of the majority’s interest which has
resulted into the widening of gap between the majority and minority.
Such political parties have brought the term secular and communal in
common use and all those who believe in the welfare of all are branded
as communal. The so called secular parties’ appeasement have moved a
step further wherein they try to impress upon the minorities that they
(secular parties) are their only saviour as they face danger from the
majority community. Thus, secular-communal debate is taking the country
back to pre-independence days. In fact, the vote bank politics has
reached a stage where the pseudo-secularists are playing with fire
forgetting the nation’s past history.
Being the oldest and biggest political party in India, it was the
responsibility of the Congress party not to enter into the arena of vote
bank politics and thereby set an example for other political parties.
But it failed to do so with the result that other political groups also
adopted the same means to compete with it. Congress from Nehru’s days
till now had been trying to inculcate a sense of insecurity in the minds
of minorities and appease them with a view to project itself as their
only well-wisher. Even for the next Lok Sabha polls to be held in 2014,
Congress leaders including its Vice President Rahul Gandhi have made it a
point to repeat the slogan of secularism explicitly to instill a sense
of insecurity in the minds of minorities particularly Muslims. The
desperate attempt to create and strengthen vote bank in the name of
secularism is a dangerous divisive trend. Thus, the concept of
nationalism with which secularism is intrinsically connected is facing a
serious challenge from vote bank politics and if this trend is not
curbed, it is perhaps going to be a long battle for all those for whom
the concept of ‘India First’ is the prime slogan.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.